Assessment of EoI:369



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 369 in South East Asia (Islands) - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 4/5

Average: 4.33/5

Evidence A: The proposed locations are 4 ICCAs in the Philippines with significant intact forest landscapes and key biodiversity areas.

Evidence B:4 distinct areas are included, each geographically different, different biodiversity explanations. high values across all

Evidence C:NA


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2 Reviewer C: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: The applicant does not explain the potential of carbon stock in the proposed locations. Information from geospatial data indicated moderate carbon density in the proposed locations.

Evidence B:Moderate to high across the areas. Marine and coastal higher than interior

Evidence C:NA


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 1/2

Average: 4.67/5

Evidence A: All of the proposed locations are maintaining by strong IPLCs because these locations are under the status of the ancestral domain of indigenous peoples in the Philippines. However, governance system has been mixed between traditional and modern governance system.

Evidence B:each area has acknowledged rights - ancestral domains and rights of management, overlaps with protected areas are there, ICCA declaration is present in every site

Evidence C:NA


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2 Reviewer C: 2/2

Average: 1.67/2

Evidence A: The applicant stated the significance of the proposed location but it is vaguely described in the answer to question 2.

Evidence B:great - again across each of the 4 sites

Evidence C:NA


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 3/5 Reviewer C: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: The proposed locations encounter high development pressure and land deals, and moderate forest change. The main threats come from mining concessions, hydroelectric dam, and the construction of roads.

Evidence B:Migration from outside, population pressures internally, loss of knowledge systems - key threats identified

Evidence C:NA


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The legal and policy frameworks in the Philippines actively promoted the recognition of indigenous peoples’ land rights. It includes the constitution and the special law on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). Many indigenous peoples’ territory have been designated by the government as ancestral domain lands, including the proposed locations.

Evidence B:NA

Evidence C:NA


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.67/3

Evidence A: The national and sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC-led conservation. The Philippines Congres enacted the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS), which promotes the protection of native plants and animals through the establishment of comprehensive system of integrated protected areas.

Evidence B:NA

Evidence C:NA


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The applicant described two successful IPLC-led conservation in the proposed location. The first is the sacred forest of Talaandig in the Mt. Kalatungan Range which has resulted in the establishment of Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) and the second is the traditional forest resource management of the Ikalahan which has been recognized by the Philippines government as the main driver for the conservation of the forest in the Palali Mamparang Range.

Evidence B:NA

Evidence C:NA


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: The applicant listed three projects that are potentially co-financing the proposed activities, These projects are strongly aligned with the proposed activities.

Evidence B:NewCAPP and PICCA projects well described, same areas, strongly aligned with this.

Evidence C:NA



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 28/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 24/30
Reviewer C Total Score: 27/30

Average Total Score: 26.33/30



Performance of EoI 369 in South East Asia (Islands) - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.67/3

Evidence A: The proposed project is well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI because this proposal is designed by indigenous peoples organization and the proposed activities are directed to enhance IPs effort to steward the land and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits.

Evidence B:implementing existing community conservation plans - really very well aligned, my hesitation is that significant investment has already come into these sights, so ‘enhance’ is harder to show

Evidence C:NA


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6 Reviewer C: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: Activities are well-defined and cohesive and results are specific and practical for improving the IPLC-led conservation programs.

Evidence B:strong design, restoration as well as conservation, territorial scope of planning

Evidence C:NA


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3 Reviewer C: 1/3

Average: 1.33/3

Evidence A: The activities are contributing to addressing threats to the proposed locations.

Evidence B:Livelihoods are addressed, but not migration pressures. Internal loss of knowledge systems is addressed.

Evidence C:The project activities have a missing link to wards addressing the threats identified, perhaps there is a need to address national scale actions involving a broader range of stakeholders


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.67/3

Evidence A: The proposed activities are exceptionally aligned wit the EoI range of investment

Evidence B:yes

Evidence C:NA


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 1/3

Average: 1.67/3

Evidence A: The applicant stated potential co-financing of the proposed activities from past projects, NGO partners, and local government units.

Evidence B:community and government, hoped-for continued NGO support.

Evidence C:Co-financing will need to be confirmed if the proposal proceeds to the next stage


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5 Reviewer C: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: The applicant estimates around 300.000 ha area for the proposed projects and around 34.324 individuals are expected to beneficiaries fo the proposed projects

Evidence B:approx / at least 180k ha

Evidence C:NA


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The applicant clearly described cultural and livelihood indicators to measure the result fo the proposed project.

Evidence B:yes, across both cultural and livelihood.

Evidence C:Indicators can be reduced for the purposes of monitoring


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.67/3

Evidence A: The proposed activities clearly promoted a long term-sustainability for IPLC-led conservation.

Evidence B:interesting ideas presented for sustainability, certainly medium term, but on-going funding likely to be needed

Evidence C:NA


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.67/3

Evidence A: The applicant has indicated that the proposed project is strongly aligned with the Philippines Biodiversity Sustainable Action Plan (PBSAP) 2015-2028.

Evidence B:Focuses on support for the Land Use Zoning

Evidence C:NA


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.67/3

Evidence A: The applicant clearly described the role of women in the communities, especially as a healer and a key actor in environmental protection. Women will also include in decision making and implementation of the proposed program.

Evidence B:linked to knowledge preservation and teaching, and to leadership roles at community level.

Evidence C:NA


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 3/5 Reviewer C: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: The proposed project is located in strong IPLC-led conservation. Therefore, this project is beyond a pilot project, but this project is intended to create a robust example for successful and sustainable IPLC-lde conservation that can be used as a model for IPLC-led conservation in the counry and region.

Evidence B:clearly strong national networks between ICCAs could increase scale

Evidence C:NA



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 35/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 29/40
Reviewer C Total Score: 33/40

Average Total Score: 32.33/40



Performance of EoI 369 in South East Asia (Islands) - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6 Reviewer C: 6/6

Average: 5.33/6

Evidence A: The applicant is an indigenous peoples organization and the proposed projects is lead by indigenous experiences and demands from the grassroots level.

Evidence B:some NGOs in support roles, leadership clearly IPLC, including community/ancestral domain level ownership

Evidence C:NA


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6 Reviewer C: 6/6

Average: 5.33/6

Evidence A: The applicant has demonstrated exceptional and long-standing leadership to the proposed work because the applicant is an indigenous peoples organization that has long experience in promoting IPLC-led conservation in the proposed locations.

Evidence B:yes

Evidence C:NA


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 5/5

Average: 4.67/5

Evidence A: The applicant has demonstrated a strong IPLC governance system and a strong connection to NGOs and local government in proposed project locations.

Evidence B:NA

Evidence C:NA


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 3/5 Reviewer C: 5/5

Average: 4.33/5

Evidence A: The applicant has the skills and experience to implement the proposed activities and has past experience with GEF funded projects.

Evidence B:This project would be larger than those before. capacity support needed perhaps. extremely strong capacity on content (ICCA support) only hesitation is on financial sude

Evidence C:The proposal puts for GEF project experience so the score is reflects that. The proposal does not, however put forward information on administrative and fiduciary technical capacity so there is no way to judge this. Note that the largest funds to date noted in the proposal is 10% of the proposed funding being sought. Fiduciary capacity needs to be addressed, gaps filled where necessary and confirmed in the succeeding stages.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 4/6 Reviewer C: 2/6

Average: 2.67/6

Evidence A: The applicant has an annual budget for USD 100.000 and has been implementing some small projects from more than 5 donor agencies. This indicated that the applicant requires support to implement a bigger project with a total sponsor of more than USD 200.000

Evidence B:Some support would be needed

Evidence C:NA


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2 Reviewer C: 1/2

Average: 1.33/2

Evidence A: The applicant was the local responsible partner of the ICCA Project funded by the GEF and co-implemented with UNDP and DENR of the Philippines.

Evidence B:implemented GEF funded projects before, but not directly (via UNDP)

Evidence C:Project implementation is not equivalent to safeguards experience. While the social safeguards may reasonably be presumed to be met under the design of the project, environmental safeguards need to also be taken into account (e.g. those addressing potential impacts from infrastructure development - e.g. maintenance of schools and sites; confirming that there is no impacts from use of pesticides etc).



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 26/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 20/30
Reviewer C Total Score: 25/30

Average Total Score: 23.67/30



Performance of EoI 369 in South East Asia (Islands) - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)